Can science and technology increase human happiness?

I question whether advances in science and technology increase human happiness, and analyze this through a definition of happiness and the ambivalence of science and technology. I argue that even if science and technology cannot directly promote happiness, it can indirectly contribute as an important tool.

 

Corporate social responsibility is a big issue these days. Many companies are actively fulfilling their responsibilities through social activities and expressing them in advertisements. To give a few examples, Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction is engaged in social activities to bring electricity to countries without access to electricity, and KEPCO is helping to build power plants in countries that do not have their own power generation technology. There are many forms of social activities, but I started this article because I had a question about social activities in which a company with advanced technology distributes technology to less technologically advanced regions.
Does bringing technology to technologically backward countries, or bringing electricity to people who live without electricity, increase their happiness or respect their way of life? Moreover, does science and technology promote human happiness? I couldn’t easily answer yes to these questions. It was hopeless for me, who had promised myself that I would major in science and technology to improve human happiness. What was I, and the many scientists and engineers who had dedicated their lives to advancing science and technology, working so hard for? Until I found the answer to this question, I could not take a single step toward my dream.
Before we get into the discussion above, let’s start with a definition of happiness. According to the Oxford Dictionary, happiness is “the feeling or state of having sufficient satisfaction and joy in life.” Of course, the definition of happiness varies depending on people’s values, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s define happiness as the state of feeling satisfied and joyful.
Does the development of science and technology increase the absolute amount of happiness? If this proposition is true, then we should be much happier today than we were in primitive times, or at least in the Joseon Dynasty. If you think that the absolute amount of happiness cannot be measured, or that you can’t judge it because you haven’t lived through the Joseon Dynasty, let’s ask a more specific question. Do you think Americans, who live in the most advanced technological society, are happier than Danes, who live in nature? It’s impossible to express happiness in absolute terms, but if you look at national happiness indexes, you’ll see that Americans are much less happy. If you feel that this question is not directly comparable because of the differences in their cultures, lifestyles, and values, try answering the following question. Has your happiness, satisfaction, and joy in life increased because of your smartphone as the latest piece of technology? Is your life happier now that you have a smartphone than it was in the mid-2000s when you had a feature phone? I don’t think so. We rely on our smartphones to such an extent now that we can’t feel enough satisfaction and joy in our lives without them, but in the feature phone era, smartphones had no impact on our happiness, or couldn’t have. This is because the absence of smartphones cannot affect the satisfaction and joy of our lives when we don’t even have the concept of smartphones. The three questions above may have made you feel the way I felt at first, doubting the relationship between technology and happiness. I hope you will keep these doubts in mind as we continue our discussion.
This time, let’s analyze the opposite position. Is it really the case that advances in science and technology do not increase human happiness? Let’s take a common counterexample. When we buy a new car, gadget, or electronic device, we feel much more satisfied and joyful about life than if we didn’t have it (although this also quickly wears off). Here, we need to distinguish between the happiness caused by the fulfillment of material desires and the happiness caused by the development of science and technology. If this is happiness that is enhanced by the development of science and technology, then you should feel satisfaction and joy in life when the new car, electronic device, etc. is released, not when you buy it. But people only feel happy when they own it. This means that enthusiasm for the new, interest in beauty and freshness are just well-packaged by technology, and technology itself only creates material needs and does not contribute to happiness. Let’s take this discussion further with a concrete example. Why do you want to buy and use the latest smartphone? If you want to use the latest technology, your happiness should be the same when you use it on your friend’s latest smartphone as it is when you buy and use it yourself, but it is not. In other words, it is difficult to say that technology itself has directly contributed to the happiness of smartphone buyers.
So why can’t science and technology contribute to human happiness? I found the answer in the ambivalence of technology. I believe that science and technology are always ambivalent, and by their very nature, they cannot promote absolute human happiness. Science and technology can either increase or decrease human happiness depending on how it is used. For example, nuclear fission technology has relieved humanity of energy worries, but it also threatens humanity with nuclear weapons. Smartphones have made it easier for people to communicate and get information quickly, but they have also created a lot of negative factors, such as herniated discs and invasion of privacy. In addition, the development of transportation has exponentially increased the range of human activities, but it has also had a negative impact on society by increasing the risk of social problems (such as environmental pollution) and accidents. Some might argue that even if science and technology are ambivalent, if the positive effects outweigh the negative ones, then they have contributed to increasing human happiness. However, this is also not true. The reason why science and technology is ambivalent is because people who use it are ambivalent, not because science and technology itself is positive or negative. Technology itself is a neutral, intangible thing. Therefore, science and technology that is neither positive nor negative cannot contribute to the promotion of human happiness. Let’s analyze an example. Today, the development of science and technology has exponentially improved the capabilities of weapons aimed at killing humans. But have these advances in weapon technology exponentially increased the casualties of modern warfare compared to the past? Absolutely not. The reason why the bloody and brutal religious wars of the past caused more casualties than the current war in Afghanistan was not the level of technological advancement, but the extent to which the negative side of human ambivalence was expressed in that situation. In other words, even weapons technology, which seems to have more negative aspects, is a neutral technology that can have positive or negative effects depending on how people use it and for what purpose.

Does this mean that we, as science and technology majors, no longer need to study and develop science and technology? No, we don’t. Science and technology itself cannot promote human happiness, but it can be a useful tool to promote human happiness. For example, the development of magnetic resonance devices can detect previously undetected diseases and improve the happiness of many people who were dying in pain and without knowing the name of the disease. In addition, the development of personal wheelchairs and accessible infrastructure has increased the mobility of people with disabilities, enabling them to expand their circle of influence and live new lives. What about driverless car technology? If the development of driverless cars can save the lives of many people who are dying in car accidents, it is a great contribution to human happiness. All of these examples are indirect benefits of using science and technology in a positive way, and we can clearly see that science and technology is an indirect but important tool for improving human happiness.
Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that science and technology doesn’t promote happiness per se, or that we should shy away from it because we’re afraid of the negative effects it can have. This is like the early Europeans who destroyed machines during the Industrial Revolution because they thought they would take away their jobs. Many people believe that the purpose of living in the world is to create more opportunities for future generations to be happy, and that this opportunity lies in the development of neutral technologies. Of course, future generations may use these technologies in a negative or positive way, but that is up to the people who use them. We can see this in our ancestors who developed the printing technology to pass on the knowledge of previous generations to their descendants without compromise. Our sweat may not directly bring happiness to our descendants, but it can create more opportunities for them to be happy. So, all you science and technology majors, take heart. We are ‘indirectly’ contributing to human happiness!